Assessing bupivacaine 10 mg/fentanyl 20 microg as an intrathecal test dose

After ethics committee approval and verbal consent, women undergoing elective caesarean section given spinal anaesthesia with hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine 10 mg (2 mL) plus fentanyl 20 microg (spinal group, n = 20) and women requesting epidural analgesia in labour given the same drugs and doses epidurally, either in the same concentration (epidural small volume group, n = 10) or as 10 mL of 0.1% bupivacaine plus fentanyl 20 microg (epidural large volume group, n = 12) were recruited. The temperature of the great toes, sensory block on the outer ankle (S1 dermatome), motor block at the ankle and haemodynamic changes were recorded every 2 min for 10 min. There was a significant rise in foot temperature only in the spinal group. At four minutes a combination of warm toes and motor or sensory block, usually both, were seen only in the spinal groups. Haemodynamic changes were non-specific. We conclude that bupivacaine 10 mg with fentanyl 20 microg is a reliable agent to detect intrathecal placement by 4 min by which time a combination of motor and sensory block at the ankle and toe warming should be present.     

A comparison of the placental transfer of ropivacaine versus bupivacaine.

This study compares the placental transfer of ropivacaine and bupivacaine using the dual perfused, single cotyledon human placental model. We studied the effects of maternal/fetal protein binding, maternal ropivacaine concentration, and fetal pH on ropivacaine transfer. At a clinically relevant maternal concentration (1 microg/mL), the calculated transfer ratios (local anesthetic percent transfer/antipyrine percent transfer) of ropivacaine (0.82 +/- 0.03) and bupivacaine (0.74 +/- 0.01) were comparable at the completion of the perfusion experiment (120 min). When the perfusates were modified to simulate actual in vivo plasma protein binding values, the maternal-to-fetal transfer of ropivacaine and bupivacaine decreased significantly (P < 0.05) as indicated by transfer ratios of 0.42% +/- 0.07% and 0.40% +/- 0.03%, respectively. No saturation of the transfer process was observed for either drug at the maternal concentrations investigated. The placental transfer of both local anesthetic agents increased significantly as the fetal pH decreased. This investigation shows that ropivacaine and bupivacaine cross the human placenta at a similar rate, despite their differences in lipophilicity and stereochemistry. Placental transfer of both compounds is highly influenced by maternal and fetal protein concentration and the fetal pH. IMPLICATIONS: The placental transfer of ropivacaine was shown to be similar to that of bupivacaine, and is thus highly influenced by the degree of maternal and fetal protein binding and fetal pH.     

Postoperative extradural analgesia with morphine and ropivacaine. A double-blind comparison between placebo and ropivacaine 10 mg/h or 16 mg/h

BACKGROUND: Some controversy exists in the literature on the benefit of epidurals compared to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA). Also, the dose of ropivacaine for epidural analgesia when combined with morphine remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the epidural vs. PCA technique and high-dose vs. low-dose ropivacaine combined with morphine during knee replacement surgery. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, postoperative pain relief with a combination of epidural ropivacaine (Group L: 10 mg h-1, Group H: 16 mg h-1) and morphine (0.16 mg h-1) was evaluated in 30 patients. A placebo group (Group PL) of 15 patients having PCA morphine served as the control. Visual analog pain (VAS), morphine consumption, sensory and motor block and side-effects were recorded during 48 h. RESULTS: VAS scores at rest were significantly lower in Groups L and H compared to Group PL. On movement, Group H had lower VAS scores than Group PL during 3-27 h (P<0.05) and Group L during 4-9 h (P<0.05), while Group L had lower a VAS than Group PL during 9-18 h (P<0.05). Morphine consumption after 48 h was greater in Group PL (64.6+/-36.3 mg) vs. Group L (23.3+/-33.9 mg) (P<0.001) and Group H (4.3+/-9.6 mg) (P<0.0001). Mild motor block was seen in Group H in 20% and 14% patients at 24 h and 48 h, respectively, but time to mobilization was similar between the groups. Pruritus was more common in the ropivacaine groups (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Lumbar epidural analgesia using a combination of ropivacaine (16 mg h-1) and morphine (0.16 mg h-1) provides superior analgesia compared to the PCA technique or ropivacaine (10 mg h-1) and morphine (0.16 mg h-1). Although this resulted in a mild motor block during the first 12 h, patient mobilization was similar in all groups.     

0.5%罗哌卡因与布比卡因10mg在蛛网膜下腔阻滞的比较

目的观察0.5%罗哌卡因、布比卡因10 mg蛛网膜下腔阻滞对感觉、运动神经的阻滞效果及对血流动力学影响。方法随机选取择期行下肢、下腹或肛肠手术病人48例,ASAⅠ~Ⅱ级,分为布比卡因组(BP组)和罗哌卡因组(RP组),于L2~3、L3~4间隙行腰硬联合穿刺,蛛网膜下腔穿刺成功后于蛛网膜下腔分别注入0.5%的布比卡因或罗哌卡因10 mg,之后于硬膜外腔向头侧置管4 cm以备蛛网膜下腔阻滞不能满足手术需要时追加局麻药。观查并记录感觉阻滞平面,运动神经阻滞程度及血流动力学变化。结果两组病人血流动力学稳定,麻醉平面均能满足手术要求。BP组感觉平面高于RP组,RP组术后下肢运动恢复快于BP组。结论0.5%罗哌卡因、布比卡因10 mg用于腰硬联合麻醉可作为肛肠、部分下腹、下肢手术的麻醉选择;其中罗哌卡因术后下肢运动恢复快,较快恢复自主排尿为其优点。     

Hyperbaric bupivacaine 2.5 mg prolongs analgesia compared with plain bupivacaine when added to intrathecal fentanyl 25 microg in advanced labor

We investigated the effect of sequential administration of intrathecal (IT) hyperbaric bupivacaine (after the initial administration of IT hypobaric fentanyl) on the duration of spinal analgesia. Thirty-seven nulliparous parturients with a cervical dilation >/= 5 cm were randomized to receive either IT fentanyl 25 micro g and plain bupivacaine 2.5 mg (group P; n = 19) or IT fentanyl 25 micro g and hyperbaric (with 8% glucose) bupivacaine 2.5 mg (group H; n = 18). The two components of the IT injectate were administered sequentially (fentanyl 25 micro g diluted in 2 mL of normal saline, immediately followed by 0.5 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine). Patients were then positioned with their torso elevated at 30 degrees for 30 min. Pain scores using 0-100 visual analog scales were collected before combined spinal/epidural analgesia and at 5, 15, and 30 min after the block. Patients in Group H had a longer median duration of analgesia (122 min; range, 80-210 min) than Group P (95 min; range, 75-125 min) (P < 0.01). Group H also had a more limited dermatomal spread (median highest sensory level of T8 versus T4 in group P; P < 0.05). The side-effect profile was similar. Under these circumstances, hyperbaric bupivacaine conferred an increased duration of IT analgesia compared with plain bupivacaine.     

Spinal anaesthesia: comparison of plain ropivacaine 5 mg ml(-1) with bupivacaine 5 mg ml(-1) for major orthopaedic surgery

Background. Ropivacaine provides effective spinal anaesthesiafor total hip arthroplasty. This study was designed to comparethe efficacy and safety of plain ropivacaine with plain bupivacainefor spinal anaesthesia in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Methods. Sixty-six patients, ASA I or II, were randomized toreceive an intrathecal injection of one of two local anaestheticsolutions. Group R (n=32) received 3.5 ml of ropivacaine 5 mgml^–1 (17.5 mg). Group B (n=34) received 3.5 ml of bupivacaine5 mg ml^–1 (17.5 mg). The onset and duration of sensoryblock at dermatome level T10, maximum upper and lower spreadof sensory block and the onset, intensity and duration of motorblock were recorded, as were safety data. Results. Onset of motor and sensory block was rapid with nosignificant differences between the two groups. The median timeof onset of sensory block at the T10 dermatome was 2 min (range2–5 min) in Group R and 2 min in Group B (range 2–9min). The median duration of sensory block at the T10 dermatomewas 3.0 h (range 1.5–4.6 h) in Group R and 3.5 h (2.7–5.2h) in Group B (P<0.0001). The median duration of completemotor block (modified Bromage Scale 3) was significantly shorterin the ropivacaine group compared with the bupivacaine group(2.1 vs 3.9 h, P<0.001). Conclusions. Intrathecal administration of either 17.5 mg plainropivacaine or 17.5 mg plain bupivacaine was well toleratedand an adequate block for total hip arthroplasty was achievedin all patients. A more rapid postoperative recovery of sensoryand motor function was seen in Group R compared with Group B. Br J Anaesth 2002; 89: 702–6     

Comparison of 9 mg of intrathecal plain and hyperbaric bupivacaine both with fentanyl for cesarean delivery.

We randomized 76 parturients to a double-blinded trial to receive spinal anesthesia with either hyperbaric or plain bupivacaine 9 mg with fentanyl 20 microg for elective cesarean delivery. A combined spinal-epidural technique was used. The onset and duration of anesthesia (absence of pinprick sensation), analgesia (absence of sharp sensation to pinprick), and absence of cold sensation and motor block were measured until recovery from the motor block. No major differences were seen in onset or duration of anesthesia between the groups. Motor block, however, vanished faster when hyperbaric bupivacaine was used (P < 0.05). The level of anesthesia (no pinprick sensation) required for painless operation was at dermatome T5. At this time, the absence of cold sensation ranged from dermatome T1 to C3. The median time for the anesthesia to reach dermatome T5 was 10 min. Cervical spread of pinprick anesthesia was noted in six patients, and five needed supplementary analgesics during surgery (not significant between the groups). Maternal satisfaction was good. Nine milligrams of either plain or hyperbaric bupivacaine with fentanyl intrathecally provided similar onset, depth, and duration of sensory anesthesia for cesarean delivery with good maternal satisfaction. Motor block developed and diminished faster with the hyperbaric solution. IMPLICATIONS: Nine milligrams of either plain or hyperbaric bupivacaine with fentanyl intrathecally provided similar onset, depth, and duration of sensory anesthesia for cesarean delivery with good maternal satisfaction. Motor block developed and diminished faster with the hyperbaric solution.     

A comparison of duration of analgesia of intrathecal 2.5 mg of bupivacaine, ropivacaine, and levobupivacaine in combined spinal epidural analgesia for patients in labor

We assessed the duration of labor analgesia rendered by intrathecal (IT) local anesthetics as the sole drugs. In this randomized, controlled, and double-blinded study, labor analgesia was induced using combined spinal-epidural technique in 60 ASA physical status I nulliparous parturients with IT bupivacaine 2.5 mg (group B), ropivacaine 2.5 mg (group R), or levobupivacaine 2.5 mg (group L). Pain scores (0-100 visual analog scale) and blood pressure were recorded pre-block and for the first 30 min post-block. The degree of motor block and the highest sensory block were also monitored. The duration of analgesia (our primary outcome) was the longest in group B but was similar between groups R and L (mean +/- SE, 76.3 +/- 5.9 min versus 52.6 +/- 4.0 min and 51.5 +/- 3.4 min, respectively, P < 0.05). Group B had the most frequent incidence of lower limb motor block but there was no difference between groups R and L (5 of 20 parturients versus 2 of 20 and 0 of 20, respectively, P < 0.05). The profile of the other side effects was indistinguishable between the groups. With the current regimen, IT bupivacaine produced the longest duration of labor analgesia. IMPLICATIONS: Intrathecal 2.5 mg bupivacaine significantly prolongs the duration of analgesia in laboring patients compared with ropivacaine or levobupivacaine. This suggests that, at clinically relevant doses, bupivacaine may have greater potency.     

Duration of motor block with intrathecal ropivacaine versus bupivacaine for caesarean section: a meta-analysis

BackgroundBupivacaine is a commonly used local anaesthetic for spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section, but may produce prolonged motor block, delaying discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit. Ropivacaine may have a shorter time to recovery of motor function compared with bupivacaine. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the time difference in duration of motor block with intrathecal ropivacaine compared with bupivacaine for caesarean section.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for randomised controlled trials comparing ropivacaine with bupivacaine in parturients undergoing elective caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. The primary outcome was the duration of motor block. Secondary outcomes included the time to onset of sensory block, need for conversion to general anaesthesia and the incidence of hypotension.ResultsThirteen trials comprising 743 spinal anaesthetics were included. Intrathecal ropivacaine resulted in a reduced duration of motor block, regressing 35.7 min earlier compared with intrathecal bupivacaine (P<0.00001). There was no difference in the time to onset of sensory block (P=0.25) or the incidence of hypotension (P=0.10). Limited data suggested no difference in the rate of conversion to general anaesthesia, but an earlier request for postoperative analgesia with ropivacaine.ConclusionsCompared with bupivacaine, intrathecal ropivacaine is associated with more rapid recovery of motor block despite similar sensory properties and no increased rate of conversion to general anaesthesia. This may be useful in centres in which recovery of motor block is a criterion for discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit. However, small numbers of trials and significant heterogeneity limit the interpretation of our results.     

Spinal anaesthesia: a comparison of plain ropivacaine 5 mg ml(-1) with bupivacaine 5 mg ml(-1) for major orthopaedic surgery

Editor—I am interested in the article by McNamee and colleagues¹comparing the use of plain bupivacaine 0.5% with plain ropivacaine0.5% during spinal anaesthesia for orthopaedic surgery. Bothgroups received 3.5 ml of 0.5% of the chosen local anaesthetic. The authors report spinal blockade with a median sensory blockof T2 in the bupivacaine group and T3 in the ropivacaine group.They report ‘moderate fall in arterial blood pressurein keeping with expected sympathetic block’. Hypotensionrequiring ephedrine in the two groups occurred in 12 and 26%of patients, respectively. Up to ephedrine 35 mg was requiredin patients in either group. Adverse events included oliguria,hypotension and nausea, although incidences are not reported.The high levels of sensory blockade are considered as acceptableand part of the consequences of regional anaesthesia in elderlypatients. I     

Comparison of hyperbaric and plain ropivacaine 15 mg in spinal anaesthesia for lower limb surgery

Background. Previously, plain ropivacaine 15 mg given intrathecallyhas been shown to be feasible for ambulatory surgery of lower-extremities.Hypothetically, hyperbaric solution could improve and shortenthe block. Methods. This prospective, randomized, double-blind study included56 patients undergoing surgery of lower extremities. They receivedintrathecally either 1.5 ml of ropivacaine 10 mg ml^–1and 0.5 ml of glucose 300 mg ml^–1 (HYP) or 2 ml of ropivacaine7.5 mg ml^–1 (PL). Results. All patients in Group HYP achieved T₁₀ dermatome analgesiabut only 64% (18/28) of Group PL. T₁₀ analgesia was reachedin 5 min (median, range 5–20 min) in the HYP group vs10 min (5–45 min) in the PL group (P=0.022), and fullmotor block in 10 min (5–45 min) vs 20 min (5–60min) (P=0.003), respectively. Group HYP had a longer durationof analgesia at T₁₀; 83 min (5–145 min) vs 33 min (0–140min) (P=0.004). Duration of sensory block from injection ofthe anesthetic to complete recovery was shorter in Group HYPthan in Group PL, 210 min (120–270 min) vs 270 min (210–360min) (P<0.001), as was duration of motor block, 120 min (5–150min) vs 210 min (120–330 min) (P<0.001). Patients ofGroup HYP attained discharge criteria earlier than those ofGroup PL (P=0.009). Conclusion. In comparison with the plain solution, 15 mg ofintrathecal hyperbaric ropivacaine produced a faster onset,greater success rate of analgesia at the level of T₁₀ dermatome,and faster recovery of the block.     

Motor block during patient-controlled epidural analgesia with ropivacaine or ropivacaine/fentanyl after intrathecal bupivacaine for caesarean section

We compared patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) withropivacaine alone or combined with fentanyl in terms of analgesicefficacy, motor weakness and side-effects in patients who hadreceived spinal anaesthesia for elective Caesarean section.ASA I patients received combined spinal–epiduralanaesthesia and were randomly assigned, in a double-blind study,into two groups after operation: group R (n=23) received PCEAropivacaine 0.1%, bolus 5 mg, lockout 15 min, 3 mg h^–1background infusion, and group RF (n=24) received PCEA 0.1%ropivacaine/fentanyl 2 µg ml^–1 at identicalsettings. Pain and satisfaction on a 100 mm visual analoguescale (VAS) and side-effects were noted. Incidence of motorweakness (Bromage grade 1 or higher) was 48% (11/23) at8 h in group R compared with 13% (3/24) in group RF (P=0.025). Painscores on movement were lower in group RF at 8 and 12 hand at rest at 6 and 8 h (P<0.05 for each comparison).Analgesic consumption was less in RF (P=0.041), but there wasno difference in time to first request for supplementary analgesia.Patient satisfaction with postoperative analgesia (mean (SD))was higher in RF (79 (23) vs 57 (29) mm, P=0.045).Caution should be exercised using ropivacaine PCEA after spinalbupivacaine for Caesarean section, because its reputed motor-sparingproperty may be unreliable. Br J Anaesth 2000; 85: 468–70 ^* Corresponding author: University Department of Anaesthesia,Leicester General Hospital, Leicester LE5 4PW, UK     

Spinal anesthesia: comparison of plain ropivacaine, bupivacaine and levobupivacaine for lower abdominal surgery

This study was performed to compare the anesthetic efficacy and safety of three local anesthetic agents: racemic bupivacaine and its two isomers: ropivacaine and levobupivacaine, in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. One hundred-twenty patients, ASA I-III, were randomized to receive an intrathecal injection of one of three local anesthetic solutions. Group A (n = 40) received 3 ml of isobaric bupivacaine 5 mg/ml (15 mg). Group B (n = 40) received 3 ml of isobaric ropivacaine 5 mg/ml (15 mg). Group C (n = 40) received 3 ml of isobaric levobupivacaine 5 mg/ml (15 mg). The onset and duration of sensory block at dermatome level T8, maximum upper spread of sensory block, time for 2-segment regression of sensory block as well as the onset, intensity and duration of motor block were recorded, as were any adverse effects, such as bradycardia, hypotension, hypoxia, tremor, nausea and/or vomiting. Time to unassisted standing up and voluntary micturition was also recorded. The onset of motor block was significantly faster in the bupivacaine group compared with that in the ropivacaine group and almost the same of that in the levobupivacaine group (P < 0.05). Ropivacaine presented a shorter duration of both motor and sensory block than bupivacaine and levobupivacaine (P < 0.05). Bupivacaine required more often the use of a vasoactive drug (ephedrine) compared to both ropivacaine and levobupivacaine and of a sympathomimetic drug (atropine) compared to the ropivacaine group.     

Comparison of intrathecal bupivacaine and ropivacaine with different doses of sufentanil

Background: Spinal bupivacaine produces a complete anaesthetic block of a longer duration than ropivacaine, which leads to a potentially increased risk of failure. A combination of sufentanil to ropivacaine may improve the block's reliability. Methods: Sixty‐four patients, scheduled for varicose vein stripping or the tension‐free vaginal tape procedure, were allocated to receive double‐blindly, spinal bupivacaine 10 mg (Group 1) or ropivacaine 10 mg without (Group 2) or with sufentanil 2.5 mcg (Group 3), 5 mcg (Group 4). Sensory block was tested with pinprick and motor block was evaluated with the Bromage scale until full recovery. The primary endpoint was to compare the duration of sensory block evaluated by regression to S2. Results: In comparison with bupivacaine, ropivacaine produced a shorter duration sensory block (median at 68, 90 and 120 min in groups 2, 3 and 4, respectively, vs. 150 min in Group 1) and motor block (median at 90, 98 and 120 min in groups 2, 3 and 4 vs. 180 min in Group 1). Motor blockade was significantly less important in patients receiving spinal ropivacaine (median values for the Bromage scale at 3 in groups 2, 3 and 4, vs. 1 in Group 1). Pruritus was significantly more frequent in patients receiving spinal sufentanil (Groups 3 and 4 vs. Groups 1 and 2). Conclusion: Plain bupivacaine 10 mg has a longer recovery profile than the same dose of ropivacaine with or without sufentanil.     

A comparison of ropivacaine and bupivacaine for cervical plexus block

We compared bupivacaine 0.5% and ropivacaine 0.75% for cervical plexus block (CB). Forty patients scheduled for carotid artery surgery were allocated randomly to undergo superficial and deep CB with 30 mL of one of the two anesthetic solutions. We evaluated the onset of anesthetic block; the requirement for supplementation during the surgery; the patients' satisfaction; postoperative pain on a visual analog scale at 1, 2, and 3 h; and the use of paracetamol as a rescue analgesic medication. Arterial blood was sampled immediately and 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, and 60 min after CB for measurements of bupivacaine or ropivacaine concentrations. Patients in both groups had equivalent onset of CB, local infiltration with lidocaine during surgery, and satisfaction scores. In the Bupivacaine group, visual analog scale scores were lower at 2 and 3 h, and the delay before paracetamol administration was prolonged. Observed peak concentrations were larger in the Ropivacaine group (4.25 [2.07-6.59 mg/L] vs 3.02 [0.98-5.82 mg/L]), but time to reach peak concentrations was comparable (5 [1-15 min] vs 5 [0-45 min] in the Ropivacaine and Bupivacaine groups, respectively). We conclude that ropivacaine has no advantage over bupivacaine for CB. IMPLICATIONS: Compared with bupivacaine (150 mg), a larger dose of ropivacaine (225 mg) produces comparable features of cervical plexus block but less postoperative analgesia and larger plasma concentrations. There is no reason to favor ropivacaine in such a case.     

Scalp infiltration with bupivacaine plus epinephrine or plain ropivacaine reduces postoperative pain after supratentorial craniotomy

Local anesthetic infiltration has been proposed to decrease postoperative pain. The aim of this study was to determine whether scalp infiltration with bupivacaine or ropivacaine would improve analgesia after supratentorial craniotomy for tumor resection. Eighty patients were recruited into a randomized double-blind study. Infiltration was performed after skin closure with 20 mL of saline 0.9% (placebo group, n = 40), of 0.375% bupivacaine with epinephrine 1:200,000 (bupivacaine group, n = 20), or of 0.75% ropivacaine (ropivacaine group, n = 20). Postoperative analgesia was provided with patient-controlled morphine IV analgesia (PCA). The study was continued until PACU discharge, which occurred early in the morning following surgery. Results are reported on 37 patients in the placebo group, 20 in the bupivacaine group, and 19 in the ropivacaine group because 4 patients experienced postoperative complications and were excluded from the study. Morphine titration at arrival in the postanesthesia care unit was necessary more often in the placebo group (62% of the patients) than in the 2 treated groups (19% in each, P = 0.02). The median quantity of morphine administered during the first 2 postoperative hours, including initial titration administered by a nurse and PCA-administered morphine, was lower in each treated group than in the placebo group (P < 0.01). The median morphine consumption up to the 16th postoperative hour was not significantly different among the 3 groups. There was no difference in the visual analogue scale scores among the 3 groups at any time. Scalp infiltration with either bupivacaine or ropivacaine had a statistically significant effect on morphine consumption during the first 2 postoperative hours.     

Spinal ropivacaine for cesarean delivery: a comparison of hyperbaric and plain solutions

We compared, in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, the characteristics of spinal anesthesia with plain and hyperbaric ropivacaine for elective cesarean delivery. We hypothesized that the addition of glucose would change the onset, offset, and extent of motor and sensory block from intrathecal ropivacaine. Forty ASA physical status I--II women were given 25 mg of either ropivacaine (n = 20) or ropivacaine in 8.3% glucose (n = 20) intrathecally, via a combined spinal/epidural technique in the right lateral position. Sensory changes to ice and pinprick and motor block (Bromage score) were recorded at 2.5-min intervals. Adequate anesthesia for surgery was achieved in all patients in the Hyperbaric group, whereas in the Plain group, five (25%) patients required epidural top-up because of insufficient rostral spread (P < 0.05). With hyperbaric ropivacaine, we found the following: higher cephalic spread (median [range] maximum block height to pinprick, T1 [T4 to C2] versus T3 [T11 to C3], P < 0.001); lower coefficient of variation of maximum block height (17.7% vs 21.9%); faster onset to T4 dermatome (mean [SD] 7.7 [4.9] vs 16.4 [14.1] min, P = 0.015); and faster recovery to L1 (189.0 [29.6] vs 215.5 [27.0] min, P = 0.01). The onset of complete motor block (9.9 [5.3] vs 13.8 [5.4] min, P = 0.027) and complete recovery (144.8 [28.4] vs 218.5 [56.8] min, P < 0.001) was also faster. No neurologic symptoms were found at 24 h. IMPLICATIONS: We compared hyperbaric and plain ropivacaine for combined spinal/epidural analgesia in the lateral position in patients undergoing elective cesarean delivery. Hyperbaric ropivacaine produced more rapid block with faster recovery and less requirement for epidural supplementation compared with plain ropivacaine.     

Epidural ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml for elective Caesarean section: A double-blind comparison of efficacy and tolerability with bupivacaine 5 mg/ml

BACKGROUND: Ropivacaine is a new local anaesthetic drug known to be less cardiotoxic than bupivacaine. The aims of this comparative study with bupivacaine were to evaluate efficacy, safety and tolerability for the mother and the neonate when using ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml for epidural anaesthesia for elective Caesarean section. METHODS: In a double-blind, multicentre trial the patients were randomised to receive 20 ml of either ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml or bupivacaine 5 mg/ml. The quality of the peroperative analgesia and abdominal muscle relaxation as well as tolerability and safety in both the mother and the neonate were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients were evaluated for efficacy and tolerability. There were no significant differences in the onset time and the extent of the sensory spread or motor block. The peroperative quality of anaesthesia and muscle relaxation was similar in both groups. No significant side effects were observed, except for a more profound drop in systolic blood pressure in the ropivacaine group. The anaesthetics were well tolerated by the neonate in both groups, evaluated by Apgar and NACS scores. CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine 7.5 mg/ml administered epidurally resulted in equally effective anaesthesia for Caesarean section as bupivacaine 5 mg/ml. Because of the lower cardiotoxicity of ropivacaine, the new amide has a potential in replacing bupivacaine when used epidurally for Caesarean section.     

A comparison of spinal anesthesia characteristics following intrathecal bupivacaine or levobupivacaine in lumbar disc surgery

Purpose

While bupivacaine is the most frequently used local anesthetic for spinal anesthesia, use of levobupivacaine in clinical practice has advanced recently. The aim of our study was to compare the clinical and anesthetic effects of isobaric bupivacaine and isobaric levobupivacaine when administered intrathecally in patients undergoing lumbar disc surgery.

Methods

ASA I–III, 60 patients were enrolled in this study. Only patients with unilateral single-level (L4–5) lumbar disc hernia were selected and operated in each group and all were operated by the same surgeon. Patients were randomized into two groups, as group B (n = 30): 15 mg 0.5 % isobaric bupivacaine, or group L (n = 30): 15 mg 0.5 % isobaric levobupivacaine received intrathecally. The level of sensory block dermatome, degree of motor block, intraoperative sensory and motor block characteristics, and postoperative recovery times of spinal anesthesia were evaluated. The satisfaction scores of the surgeon and patients, intraoperative hemodynamic changes, intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded.

Results

The maximum level of sensory blockade was significantly higher in the levobupivacaine group (group L 7 ± 1.63, group B 8.6 ± 1.76 thoracic dermatome, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the onset time of sensory (group L 6 ± 3 min, group B 9 ± 4 min) and motor (in group L 7 ± 3 min, in group B 10 ± 4 min) blockade (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding duration of operation (group L 49 ± 7.3 min, group B 52 ± 8.1, p > 0.05). Recovery times of sensory (175 ± 57 min) and motor (216 ± 59 min) blockade were significantly shorter in the levobupivacaine group (p < 0.05). Mobilization was also earlier in the levobupivacaine group (339 ± 90 min, p < 0.05). Patients’ satisfaction and intraoperative, postoperative complications were similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

Our results showed that block recovery time was shorter in the levobupivacaine group, this may be a disadvantage for longer operative procedures. But with proper patient selection this can be eliminated. Recovery time was shorter in levobupivacaine group. Therefore, postoperative neurological examination can be done earlier. In addition, early mobilization can be an advantage for postoperative recovery.